Dental Malpractice in Turkey: Implant, Prosthetic and Root Canal Claims (Legal Guide)
Why dental malpractice disputes are rising
Modern dentistry combines medical judgment with high-cost “result-driven” treatments such as implants and prosthetic restorations. Patients often pay significant sums, treatments are marketed with strong “before/after” promises, and complications can cause lasting harm—pain, bone loss, nerve injury, aesthetic damage, additional surgeries, and financial loss. In Turkey, these disputes typically turn on two core legal questions:
- Was the outcome a permissible medical complication, or a breach of professional duty (malpractice)?
- What is the legal nature of the dentist–patient relationship: a mandate/service obligation or a work/result obligation?
This article is written for international and domestic patients, and for anyone considering a claim after implant failure, defective prosthetics, or root canal complications.
What “dental malpractice” means under Turkish law
“Malpractice” is not limited to dramatic mistakes. In practice, it covers any deviation from the accepted standard of care that causes damage—whether the deviation is an incorrect diagnosis, a wrong technique, inadequate sterilization, improper planning, failure to warn, or poor aftercare follow-up.
Under Turkish private law, most malpractice claims are evaluated through contractual liability (if a contractual relationship exists) and/or tort liability. The key consequence is that the dentist’s duty is not merely to “try”—it is to act with the level of care, loyalty, and diligence expected from a competent professional, and to respect the patient’s rights to information and consent.
The critical classification: mandate vs. work contract
Many dental disputes are won or lost on contract classification.
1) Treatments typically seen as “mandate/service” (vekalet-like)
Procedures aimed primarily at treatment—like many fillings, extractions, periodontal treatment, and root canal therapy—are commonly analysed as mandate/service obligations where the dentist promises diligent professional care, not a guaranteed result.
2) Treatments often seen as “work/result” (eser sözleşmesi-like)
Procedures that resemble producing a concrete result—especially prosthetics, crowns/bridges, aesthetic restorations, and many implant-based reconstructions—may be evaluated as a work (result) contract, where the dispute becomes similar to defective performance: does the “work” function properly, fit correctly, and match what was promised?
Important: Real cases are fact-specific. The same “implant case” may be treated as mandate-like or work-like depending on advertising promises, written agreements, the patient’s expectation, and what was practically undertaken. Turkish doctrine discusses that some dental procedures sit on the border between the two classifications.
Informed consent: the most underestimated liability trigger
Even when technique is defensible, dentists and clinics can face serious exposure if the patient was not properly informed.
The Patient Rights Regulation requires that patients be informed about relevant aspects of medical intervention and be able to request information about how to benefit from health services. In practice, courts and experts look for meaningful disclosure: risks, alternatives, likely outcomes, material complications, and what the patient must do for successful aftercare.
Signing a form is not a magic shield. A “consent form” that is generic, rushed, or inconsistent with the actual intervention often fails to protect the provider—especially in elective, aesthetic, or high-cost dentistry where expectations are shaped by marketing and consultations.
Common malpractice patterns in dentistry
A) Implant malpractice claims
Implant disputes are frequent because they combine surgical planning, biomaterial selection, bone quality assessment, and prosthetic stages.
Common allegations include:
- Insufficient planning (no adequate imaging, weak assessment of bone density/volume)
- Wrong angulation or placement, leading to functional problems or aesthetics failure
- Nerve injury (sensory loss, persistent numbness, neuropathic pain)
- Peri-implantitis due to technique or follow-up failures
- Unrealistic “guaranteed result” promises, especially in tourism cases
- Poor management of complications (delayed referral, inadequate revision)
Implant cases often involve both a medical assessment and a “result” assessment (does the implant-supported work function as promised?). This is why contractual classification and documentation are decisive.
B) Prosthetic/crown/bridge malpractice claims
Prosthetic disputes frequently resemble a defective work debate: fit, bite, occlusion, aesthetics, durability, and compatibility with the patient’s anatomy.
Typical issues:
- Incorrect bite/occlusion causing TMJ pain, headaches, chewing dysfunction
- Poor marginal fit leading to secondary caries and tooth loss
- Aesthetic mismatch (shade, shape, symmetry) where the marketed result was part of the deal
- Repeated detachments, fractures, or inability to function normally
When a prosthetic result is the centre of the transaction, legal analysis often shifts toward work contract logic and “defective performance” arguments.
C) Root canal (RCT) malpractice claims
Root canal therapy is classically treated as a treatment-oriented procedure where the dentist must show professional diligence—yet RCT still generates disputes because the harm can be severe.
Common allegations:
- Missed canals, inadequate cleaning/shaping
- Instrument breakage without proper management or disclosure
- Overfilling or perforation causing infection and bone loss
- Failure to diagnose vertical root fracture
- Failure to refer to endodontics specialist when necessary
- Post-treatment infection due to inadequate isolation/sterilization standards
In RCT claims, the central debate is usually standard of care + causation: was the complication unavoidable, or was there a preventable deviation?
Who may be liable: dentist, clinic, hospital, lab and assistants
Depending on the structure of treatment, liability may attach to:
- The treating dentist (professional fault)
- The clinic/hospital (organizational and contractual responsibility)
- The lab/technician involvement (often via “auxiliary performance” responsibility through the provider chain)
When treatment is delivered through a clinic entity, plaintiffs often pursue the entity because it may have stronger solvency and clearer contractual status.
For professional discipline and administrative oversight, patients also sometimes apply to bodies such as Türk Dişhekimleri Birliği and local chambers, depending on the facts and desired outcome.
The evidence that wins (or loses) dental malpractice cases
Dental disputes are technical. Without evidence, even a strong story can collapse.
1) Medical/dental records
Secure:
- Patient chart and clinical notes
- Consent forms
- Imaging: panoramic X-ray, periapical films, CT/CBCT if used
- Treatment plan and timeline
- Prescriptions and post-op instructions
Patients generally have a right to request information and documentation connected to healthcare services.
2) Financial documents and marketing promises
Collect:
- Invoices, receipts, payment slips
- Written offers, emails, messages, WhatsApp screenshots
- Ads, brochures, “guarantee” wording, package descriptions
In “dental tourism” matters, marketing representations can become highly relevant to expectations and contract interpretation.
3) Independent second opinion
A structured second opinion (with imaging and a written assessment) helps frame:
- The technical deviation
- The corrective treatment needed
- Cost projection
4) Expert assessment is inevitable
Courts and parties typically rely on expert review from institutions such as university faculties or Adli Tıp Kurumu, depending on the forum and case structure.
Which legal route is appropriate in Turkey?
The correct path depends mainly on where and how the treatment was delivered.
1) Private clinic / private hospital: consumer and contract-based routes
Many private healthcare disputes are litigated through consumer-law logic (patient as consumer; clinic as service provider). The framework is grounded in Law No. 6502 (Consumer Protection) and its dispute-resolution architecture.
A major practical point: for disputes heard in Consumer Courts, mediation can be a precondition to filing, because Law No. 6502 includes a “mandatory mediation” rule for Consumer Court disputes with stated exceptions.
Strategy note: choosing the correct forum is crucial. A wrong forum choice can waste time and trigger procedural objections.
2) Public hospital / university hospital (public nature): administrative liability route
Where the service is a public service, claims may be pursued through administrative-law mechanisms (often framed as a service-fault claim). This route has different rules on time limits, procedure, and defendants.
3) Criminal complaint (optional, fact-dependent)
If the harm is severe and the facts support negligence causing injury or death, parties sometimes file a criminal complaint in parallel. Criminal proceedings are not a substitute for compensation, but they can influence evidence gathering and expert review.
4) Professional/disciplinary complaints
A disciplinary complaint may help establish documentation and accountability. However, disciplinary outcomes do not automatically deliver compensation.
Damages: what can be claimed in dental malpractice cases?
Depending on the harm and proof, claims may include:
Material (pecuniary) damages
- Cost of corrective treatment (in Turkey or abroad)
- Medication, imaging, additional surgeries
- Travel and accommodation costs (especially in tourism cases)
- Loss of income if work capacity is affected
- Future treatment costs if ongoing care is required
Moral (non-pecuniary) damages
- Severe pain, prolonged suffering, aesthetic harm
- Psychological impact (especially with facial/dental appearance)
The calculation is always case-specific; what matters is documented causation and a credible narrative supported by expert findings.
Step-by-step: what an injured patient should do (practical roadmap)
- Stop uncontrolled “trial treatments.” Get a second opinion before more irreversible procedures.
- Secure all records (including imaging). Do this early; delays can create “missing record” disputes.
- Document the harm with dated photos/videos and a symptom diary (pain, numbness, function limits).
- Quantify losses (receipts, travel costs, paid packages, revision costs).
- Choose the correct forum and legal theory (mandate vs work; consumer vs civil vs administrative).
- Prepare for expert review: the file should be built for the expert, not only for the judge.
- Consider mediation strategy (especially if Consumer Court route is likely mandatory).
Frequently asked questions
If an implant fails, is the dentist automatically liable?
No. Implant failure can be a known complication. Liability depends on whether there was a preventable deviation: planning, technique, sterilization, patient selection, warnings, and follow-up.
If I signed a consent form, can I still sue?
Often yes. Courts and experts look at whether consent was informed and meaningful—not just signed.
Can I claim the cost of treatment done abroad to fix the problem?
Potentially, yes—if it is reasonably necessary, documented, and causally connected to the malpractice.
Is dentistry treated as “work contract” in Turkey?
Some procedures—especially prosthetics and many implant packages—can be analysed through work/result logic; other treatments are commonly treated as mandate/service. The facts and expectations are decisive.
Legal disclaimer
This article provides general legal information and does not constitute legal advice for a specific case.
Yanıt yok